Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
This thread is discussing the recent Anderson Cooper examination of the "work" of Sylvia Browne. At one point, Cooper presented a testimonial of sorts from a former FBI investigator:
If agent Ted is interested in talking, here are some of the matters I would pursue:
1. Has Sylvia Browne ever given you new information--verifiable facts that were not available to you and that were not in the public record--that helped you crack a case?
2. If so, in which cases, and how did she help?
3. Did you use any of her psychically obtained tips to make a search or arrest?
3a. Did you use her tips as the basis for a search warrant?
3b. Did you use her tips as the basis for an arrest warrant?
3c. Did you use her tips as the basis to make a non-custodial stop?
3d. Can you lead me to any case--not just one you worked on, but any case--in which psychically obtained tips--from any psychic, not just Browne--were the basis for a valid search warrant or arrest warrant?
3e. Would you feel comfortable about going before a judge and saying that your probable cause was based in part upon a tip from a psychic? If not, why not?
3f. Would you advise other law enforcement officers to use tips from psychics to guide their investigations?
3g. Does the FBI advise its agents to use tips from psychics to guide their investigations? (Are there any psychics on staff? Does the FBI offer training to help agents develop their psychic abilities?)
As a matter of constitutional law, officers must have a degree of evidence before they can restrict citizens' freedom. Perhaps the most well known are "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion." For example, a search made without probable cause is generally invalid, and any evidence obtained as a result of an invalid search is generally inadmissible in court. Moreover, many (but not all) searches require a search warrant, which requires the officer to submit the evidence to judicial review. Hunches, wild-ass guesses, and unfounded tips cannot be the basis for intrusions of privacy by law enforcement officers.
If a law enforcement officer used a psychic "tip" to make a search or an arrest, a defendant's lawyer would have cause for celebration. Such a "tip" could contaminate the entire proceeding, and if by chance the defendant was actually guilty of something (even if he wasn't guilty of what the psychic said), the defendant could have grounds to have incriminating evidence ruled inadmissible.
4. You've said that "few [psychics] are really on target" in criminal investigations. Does that mean that, in the majority of cases, psychic tips are a waste of law enforcement time and resources?
4a. Is an FBI agent obliged to "check out" psychic tips, even if they're probably going to be wastes of time and resources?
4b. Is there any harm associated with that?
5. You've said that "Sylvia Browne is probably one of the most accurate psychics in the country." Can you quantify how accurate?
5a. You said "probably." With what probability do you quantify her accuracy?
5b. In what respect has she been "accurate?" Do you mean she's been accurate in her own right, or do you mean that she was closer to what was eventually discovered than the other psychics, who were even further off than she was?
5c. Would she be considered an "accurate" source of information in comparison to good old-fashioned police work?
Gunderson's remarks suggest that he is speaking of relative accuracy, in which Browne's performance is compared to other self-proclaimed seers. There are so many variables of accuracy that one has to quantify it for it to make any sense at all. For example, if one psychic makes more guesses than another, the psychic who makes more guesses is more likely to have a hit than the psychic who makes fewer guesses. Yet it would be questionable to say that the bigger guesser is more "accurate" when he has more hits but also many more misses.
Also, some of these self-anointed psychics make very specific guesses ("He's in Peculiar, Missouri."), while others make very general guesses ("I see water and the letter 'S.'"). The general guesser is likely to score more hits than the specific guesser. So again, "accurate" needs to be quantified to be meaningful.
Further, there is a big different between being "accurate" and being reliable. Accordingly, it would also be a good idea to probe: 5d. Would Browne be considered a reliable source of information in a law enforcement investigation?
If Ted is a man of integrity, and I suspect that he probably is, a face-to-face interview with him might well reveal that he is not quite so pro-Sylvia Browne as she would like.
Keep in mind that these questions need not be presented in a hostile form, like a cross-examiner would ask. They can be presented in a conversational manner, like someone who is genuinely interested in knowing whether Browne or other self-proclaimed psychics can actually help law enforcement.
At first glance, this seems to be in Browne's favor, but is it really? His remarks are intriguing not only in what they say but in what they do not say.
If agent Ted is interested in talking, here are some of the matters I would pursue:
1. Has Sylvia Browne ever given you new information--verifiable facts that were not available to you and that were not in the public record--that helped you crack a case?
2. If so, in which cases, and how did she help?
3. Did you use any of her psychically obtained tips to make a search or arrest?
3a. Did you use her tips as the basis for a search warrant?
3b. Did you use her tips as the basis for an arrest warrant?
3c. Did you use her tips as the basis to make a non-custodial stop?
3d. Can you lead me to any case--not just one you worked on, but any case--in which psychically obtained tips--from any psychic, not just Browne--were the basis for a valid search warrant or arrest warrant?
3e. Would you feel comfortable about going before a judge and saying that your probable cause was based in part upon a tip from a psychic? If not, why not?
3f. Would you advise other law enforcement officers to use tips from psychics to guide their investigations?
3g. Does the FBI advise its agents to use tips from psychics to guide their investigations? (Are there any psychics on staff? Does the FBI offer training to help agents develop their psychic abilities?)
As a matter of constitutional law, officers must have a degree of evidence before they can restrict citizens' freedom. Perhaps the most well known are "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion." For example, a search made without probable cause is generally invalid, and any evidence obtained as a result of an invalid search is generally inadmissible in court. Moreover, many (but not all) searches require a search warrant, which requires the officer to submit the evidence to judicial review. Hunches, wild-ass guesses, and unfounded tips cannot be the basis for intrusions of privacy by law enforcement officers.
If a law enforcement officer used a psychic "tip" to make a search or an arrest, a defendant's lawyer would have cause for celebration. Such a "tip" could contaminate the entire proceeding, and if by chance the defendant was actually guilty of something (even if he wasn't guilty of what the psychic said), the defendant could have grounds to have incriminating evidence ruled inadmissible.
4. You've said that "few [psychics] are really on target" in criminal investigations. Does that mean that, in the majority of cases, psychic tips are a waste of law enforcement time and resources?
4a. Is an FBI agent obliged to "check out" psychic tips, even if they're probably going to be wastes of time and resources?
4b. Is there any harm associated with that?
5. You've said that "Sylvia Browne is probably one of the most accurate psychics in the country." Can you quantify how accurate?
5a. You said "probably." With what probability do you quantify her accuracy?
5b. In what respect has she been "accurate?" Do you mean she's been accurate in her own right, or do you mean that she was closer to what was eventually discovered than the other psychics, who were even further off than she was?
5c. Would she be considered an "accurate" source of information in comparison to good old-fashioned police work?
Gunderson's remarks suggest that he is speaking of relative accuracy, in which Browne's performance is compared to other self-proclaimed seers. There are so many variables of accuracy that one has to quantify it for it to make any sense at all. For example, if one psychic makes more guesses than another, the psychic who makes more guesses is more likely to have a hit than the psychic who makes fewer guesses. Yet it would be questionable to say that the bigger guesser is more "accurate" when he has more hits but also many more misses.
Also, some of these self-anointed psychics make very specific guesses ("He's in Peculiar, Missouri."), while others make very general guesses ("I see water and the letter 'S.'"). The general guesser is likely to score more hits than the specific guesser. So again, "accurate" needs to be quantified to be meaningful.
Further, there is a big different between being "accurate" and being reliable. Accordingly, it would also be a good idea to probe: 5d. Would Browne be considered a reliable source of information in a law enforcement investigation?
If Ted is a man of integrity, and I suspect that he probably is, a face-to-face interview with him might well reveal that he is not quite so pro-Sylvia Browne as she would like.
Keep in mind that these questions need not be presented in a hostile form, like a cross-examiner would ask. They can be presented in a conversational manner, like someone who is genuinely interested in knowing whether Browne or other self-proclaimed psychics can actually help law enforcement.
